(empirical) relation between MSE and condition number

divB
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Hi,

It is a well known fact that in an inverse linear problem low condition numbers have low noise amplification and therefore decrease the error.

So I wanted to test this: I draw random (skinny) matrices A, calculate y=A*c where c is a known coefficient vector, add some noise and calculate c from Least Squares. I would expect at least a small correlation between the MSE for c and the condition number.

But this is what it looks:

untitled.png


Yes, is it arbitrary, uncorrelated, this does not make sense at all! For example, a (relatively) low condition number of 1.5 can produce everything from the best (-79dB) down to the worst (-56dB). Changing the parameters does not change anything

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong or which (wrong?) assumptions I make?

Thanks


PS: Here is the MATLAB code

Code:
K = 5;
M = 50;
numtrials = 1000;
c = randn(K,1);
for trial=1:numtrials
    A = randn(M,K);
    y = A*c;
    y = add_noise(y, 55); % add 55dB noise via randn(...)
    c_rec = A \ y; %c_rec = pinv(A)*y;
    NMSE_c = 20*log10(norm(c - c_rec)/norm(c));
    plot(cond(A), NMSE_c, 'bo');
    hold on;
    xlabel('Condition number');
    ylabel('NMSE of coefficients');
    drawnow;
end
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, this is not my field but I will try to give you some advices. What's happen if you add a 0db noise ? Also, are you sure that the function add_noise is bug free ?
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top